Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1005 of 1984, decided on 29th October, 1984.

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1‑8‑1984, passed in Writ Petition No.3423 of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, r.3‑‑Election Petition‑‑Recount of votes‑‑Petitioner declared successful against two contesting candidates‑‑Recount conducted on allegation of invalid votes‑‑Respondent securing larger number of valid votes, declared successful‑‑Order impugned‑‑Matter being finding of fact, High Court, declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Plea raised for first time before Supreme Court at leave granting stage that Tribunal had erred in not recounting votes of another respondent, repelled‑‑No allegations having been made with respect to votes cast in his favour and valid votes secured by petitioner being far less, recounting would have made no difference‑‑Leave refused.

M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th October, 1984.

.‑‑ Muhammad Ismail petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 1‑1‑1984, dismissing his writ petition in an election matter.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition, are, briefly that the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contested the Local Council Election for a seat in the Union Council Khulal, Tehsil Shakargarh District Sialkot, from Electoral Unit of Ward No.l. The election was held on 28‑9‑1983. According to the count made by the Polling Officer the petitioner obtained 126 votes as against 125 votes obtained by respondent No.2 and 100 votes obtained by respondent No.3. He was, therefore, declared successful. Respondent No.2 filed an election p0etition on the ground that a large number of votes cast in favour of the petitioner were not valid. When this ground was pressed before the Election Tribunal had ordered recounting of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner as well as Abdur Rauf respondent No.2, whereupon it was found that out of the votes cast in favour of Abdur Rauf respondent No.2, 13 votes were invalid as they pertained to Ward No.3, while 52 votes cast in favour of Muhammad Ismail petitioner were found to be invalid for the same reason. Resultantly Abdur Rauf was found to have obtained 112 valid votes while Muhammad Ismail petitioner was found to have obtained 74 valid votes. Consequently, finding that Abdur Rauf had obtained more votes than the petitioner the Election Tribunal set aside the result of the election and declared Abdur Rauf as having been elected from the constituency in question.

Feeling aggrieved Muhammad Ismail petitioner moved the High Court through a Constitution Petition which was dismissed in limine by a short order which reads as follows:‑

"It has been found as a fact, on re‑count before the Election Tribunal, that the petitioner secured 74 votes as against 112 votes of the respondent. Learned counsel is not in a position to state that the re‑count was invalid. In this view of the matter, we find no justification to interfere in this matter. The writ petition is consequently dismissed in limine."

Hence the present petition.

3. The only contention urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the High Court had not taken notice of the fact that the Election Tribunal had erred in not conducting a recount of the votes obtained by the third candidate namely Bashir Ahmad respondent No.3.

4. In the first place this contention does' not appear to have been pressed before the High Court; secondly no allegation had been made by Abdur Rauf respondent No.2, with respect to the votes cast ink favour of Bashir Ahmad respondent. As such the occasion for checking up as to whether or not he had obtained any invalid vote‑, did not arise. Lastly, even if all the 100 votes cast in favour of Bashir Ahmad respondent were found to be valid, the valid votes found to have been cast in favour of Abdur Rauf respondent (i.e. 112 votes) were more in number than those cast in favour of Bashir Ahmad respondent No.3

As such even if recounting of Bashir Ahmad's votes had been conducted , by the Election Tribunal, it would have made no difference whatsoever.

For the above‑mentioned reasons this petition is dismissed as having no force.

M.I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.